Have you ever used manipulation to your advantage or felt manipulated in a situation? Do you believe it’s based on ethical principles? Would your opinion change if you looked at it as a strategic way to influence someone – whether it’s in a professional work environment or in a political setting – rather than a way to deceive? In this article, we’re going to explore the ethical boundaries of manipulation and to what degree it should be perceived as acceptable.
People may try to take advantage of the fact that deceit can be considered as rational to justify immoral actions, but what makes manipulation reasonable? And, is it always used with malicious intent? The necessary conditions that define the rationality of a manipulative approach are such that: (1) A aims to persuade B of a thesis that A believes to be true and rationally justifiable, however (2) A deliberately suppresses additional true evidence which A thinks might mislead B to believe the opposite of A’s thesis, and (3) B has innocent expectations so they don’t expect A to avoid mentioning any additional evidence (Breakey, 2023).
Having established the formal definition, we can now focus on manipulation in a professional environment. On the one hand, it can manifest itself in the workplace in the exploitation of trust in interpersonal relationships. It mixes professional and emotional elements and appears through enforcing guilt or through passive-aggressive comments. One clear example of utilizing that strategy in a corporate atmosphere is the “we are a family” culture, which can blur professional boundaries and enable manipulation, whether rational or not (Sirakaya, 2025). On the other side of the social boundaries, the existence of manipulative businesses (MBs) provides us with the opportunity to explore unethical manipulation. MBs are legal but unethical systems of influence whose goal is to strategically exploit employees’ loyalty and commitment, and the buyer’s interest for higher profits (Kulik & Alarcon & Salimath, 2020). Instead of preventing it, the “iron triangle” of government, legal system and industry further enforces it by working in favor of corporations and businesses (Kulik & Alarcon & Salimath, 2020). This may lead to manipulation becoming normalized and embedded in society, not just individual behavior.
Was the decision for Brexit the result of a manipulative strategy?
A manipulative strategy frequently used in politics is ambiguity – the government expects that if its policy visions are described to the public as vaguely as possible, they would not be called into question. Despite the highly politicized world surrounding us now, many people lack interest in the depth of the topic, pushing them to vote for leaders that are inconsistent and do not follow through on their obscurely defined goals. A phenomenon that exhibits ambiguity and inconsistency in public affairs and its effect on voters’ decisions is Brexit. As stated by Chung and Kim (2019), there was a high percentage of activity on the internet surrounding the Brexit initiative. Taking into consideration the vagueness of the framing in the political parties’ Facebook posts during the post-referendum period, it follows that the parties couldn’t provide clear visions and goals to the general public. Therefore, it could be concluded that the voters didn’t fully understand the scope of the changes that Brexit would bring to their day-to-day lives. Another presumption from people’s vote was that “immigration and national sovereignty” was deemed more important than the negative effect on the country’s economy (Chung & Kim, 2019). This brings us to believe that the act of Britain exiting the European Union was presented in a way that would essentially influence people into endorsement while suppressing true information that might shape their decision. This can be interpreted as “rational manipulation”, as defined by the necessary conditions (Breakey, 2023). However, in a more general sense, according to research, if a party’s position aligns with that of the voters, the more vague and inconsistent their policy statements are, the more this hurts their evaluation, thereby influencing voter preferences (Lefevere & Verwee, 2025).
In conclusion, the boundaries of using deceit to acquire an advantage can appear unclear in situations such as in professional and public environments. While manipulation could be defined as rational when it conforms to the necessary conditions, the line between malicious and genuine intent is often difficult to discern. Guidance is generally not perceived with negative connotation, however, in the form of manipulative behavior, it may sabotage the end goal of the individual. All in all, as long as the general public is not misled, or the boundaries of professional relationships not blurred, rational manipulation might even be considered socially acceptable, with long-lasting observable impacts.
References:
(1) Breakey, H. (2023) Is Rational Manipulation Permissible?. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 28 (2025), 379–396.
(2) Sirakaya, Y. (2025) Abuse of Good Will: The Anatomy of Emotional Manipulation in Professional Relationships. Medical 6(5), 894–903.
(3) Lefevere, J. & Verwee, A. (2025) Ambiguity in the Campaign, and in Office: How Parties’ Ambiguous Policy Statements Affect Party Support. International Journal of Public Opinion Research Volume 37, Issue 3.
(4) Kulik, B. & Alarcon, M. & Salimath, M. (2020) The manipulative business and society. Business and Society Review 125, 89–118.
(5) Noggle, R. (2025) The Ethics of Manipulation, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2025 Edition).
(6) Christoph, H. & Robinson, dos S. (2022) Manipulation and the value of rational agency. Kant’s Theory of Value, 241–259.
(7) Chung, S. W. & Kim, Y. (2019) The Truth behind the Brexit Vote: Clearing away Illusion after Two Years of Confusion. Sustainability, 11(19), 5201.
B.BIAS 